[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 216 (Monday, November 9, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60412-60414]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-29919]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50-361 and 50-362]


Southern California Edison Company; Notice of Consideration of 
Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses, Proposed No 
Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for a 
Hearing

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is 
considering issuance of amendments to Facility Operating License Nos. 
NPF-10 and NPF-15 issued to Southern California Edison Company (the 
licensee) for operation of the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, 
Unit Nos. 2 and 3 located in San Diego County, California.
    The proposed amendments would revise the turbine missile protection 
calculation methodology in the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, 
Unit Nos. 2 and 3 (SONGS) licensing basis.
    Before issuance of the proposed license amendment, the Commission 
will have made findings required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as 
amended (the Act) and the Commission's regulations.
    The Commission has made a proposed determination that the amendment 
request involves no significant hazards consideration. Under the 
Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 50.92, this means that operation of 
the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) 
involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; 
or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. As 
required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of 
the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented 
below:

    1. The proposed change does not involve a significant increase 
in the probability or consequences of an accident previously 
evaluated.
    This change is in support of a planned replacement of the 
existing shrunk-on disc turbines with welded-rotor turbines for 
Units 2 and 3. The new design is believed to be superior to the 
existing design in terms of the probability of generation of 
missiles. However, because a new missile strike-and-damage analysis 
has not been performed, and due to differences in the method of 
calculation of missile generation probability--for instance, 
inclusion of stress corrosion cracking as a potential failure 
mechanism--it is difficult to quantify the change in probability of 
damage to safety-related equipment due to turbine missile strikes.
    However, in order to characterize the effect of the proposed 
change, a comparison can be made using the current turbine missile 
methodology for the current design and the proposed methodology for 
the proposed design. Using the methodology currently approved for 
San Onofre Units 2 and 3 for the current shrunk-on disc rotor 
design, the overall probability of damage to safety-related systems, 
structures, and components is 0.9 x 10-7.
    Using the methodology proposed by this change for the new welded 
rotor design, the overall probability of damage to safety-related 
systems, structures, and components is calculated to be 1.7 x 
10-8 per year.
    Ultimately, the proposed change is acceptable because the 
overall probability of damage to safety-related systems, structures, 
and components will be less than or equal to the acceptance criteria 
of 1 x 10-7 per year stated in Regulatory Guide (RG) 
1.115. The difference between the calculated value of 1.7 x 
10-8 and the acceptance criteria of 1 x 10-7 
is considered margin that is available to account for any future 
changes to the turbine missile generation analysis.
    Therefore, this change does not involve a significant increase 
in the probability or consequences of an accident previously 
evaluated.
    2. The proposed change does not create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.

[[Page 60413]]

    Damage to safety-related systems, structures, and components 
from turbine missiles is currently evaluated in Section 3.5.1.3 of 
the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR). This proposed 
change merely provides an alternative method to demonstrate that the 
overall probability of damage to safety-related systems, structures, 
and components from turbine missiles will remain less than or equal 
to the acceptance criterion of 1 x 10-7 per year, which 
is the current acceptance criterion.
    Therefore, this proposed change will not create a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident that has been 
previously evaluated.
    3. The proposed change does not involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety.
    There is no change to the method of operation of the turbine for 
Units 2 and 3 as a result of this change. Turbine overspeed 
protection is unaffected, and provides assurance that the turbine 
will operate within design limits.
    Therefore, there will be no significant reduction in a margin of 
safety as a result of this change.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed 
determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of 
publication of this notice will be considered in making any final 
determination.
    Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the 
expiration of the 30-day notice period. However, should circumstances 
change during the notice period such that failure to act in a timely 
way would result, for example, in derating or shutdown of the facility, 
the Commission may issue the license amendment before the expiration of 
the 30-day notice period, provided that its final determination is that 
the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration. The final 
determination will consider all public and State comments received. 
Should the Commission take this action, it will publish in the Federal 
Register a notice of issuance and provide for opportunity for a hearing 
after issuance. The Commission expects that the need to take this 
action will occur very infrequently.
    Written comments may be submitted by mail to the Chief, Rules and 
Directives Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Office of 
Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 
20555-0001, and should cite the publication date and page number of 
this Federal Register notice. Written comments may also be delivered to 
Room 6D59, Two White Flint North, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, 
Maryland, from 7:30 a.m. to 4:15 p.m. Federal workdays. Copies of 
written comments received may be examined at the NRC Public Document 
Room, the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC.
    The filing of requests for hearing and petitions for leave to 
intervene is discussed below.
    By December 9, 1998, the licensee may file a request for a hearing 
with respect to issuance of the amendment to the subject facility 
operating license and any person whose interest may be affected by this 
proceeding and who wishes to participate as a party in the proceeding 
must file a written request for a hearing and a petition for leave to 
intervene. Requests for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene 
shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's ``Rules of Practice 
for Domestic Licensing Proceedings'' in 10 CFR Part 2. Interested 
persons should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.714 which is 
available at the Commission's Public Document Room, the Gelman 
Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC, and at the local public 
document room located at the Main Library, University of California, 
Irvine, California 92713. If a request for a hearing or petition for 
leave to intervene is filed by the above date, the Commission or an 
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, designated by the Commission or by 
the Chairman of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, will rule 
on the request and/or petition; and the Secretary or the designated 
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board will issue a notice of hearing or an 
appropriate order.
    As required by 10 CFR 2.714, a petition for leave to intervene 
shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in 
the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of 
the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons 
why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the 
following factors: (1) the nature of the petitioner's right under the 
Act to be made party to the proceeding; (2) the nature and extent of 
the petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the 
proceeding; and (3) the possible effect of any order which may be 
entered in the proceeding on the petitioner's interest. The petition 
should also identify the specific aspect(s) of the subject matter of 
the proceeding as to which petitioner wishes to intervene. Any person 
who has filed a petition for leave to intervene or who has been 
admitted as a party may amend the petition without requesting leave of 
the Board up to 15 days prior to the first prehearing conference 
scheduled in the proceeding, but such an amended petition must satisfy 
the specificity requirements described above.
    Not later than 15 days prior to the first prehearing conference 
scheduled in the proceeding, a petitioner shall file a supplement to 
the petition to intervene which must include a list of the contentions 
which are sought to be litigated in the matter. Each contention must 
consist of a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be 
raised or controverted. In addition, the petitioner shall provide a 
brief explanation of the bases of the contention and a concise 
statement of the alleged facts or expert opinion which support the 
contention and on which the petitioner intends to rely in proving the 
contention at the hearing. The petitioner must also provide references 
to those specific sources and documents of which the petitioner is 
aware and on which the petitioner intends to rely to establish those 
facts or expert opinion. Petitioner must provide sufficient information 
to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material 
issue of law or fact. Contentions shall be limited to matters within 
the scope of the amendment under consideration. The contention must be 
one which, if proven, would entitle the petitioner to relief. A 
petitioner who fails to file such a supplement which satisfies these 
requirements with respect to at least one contention will not be 
permitted to participate as a party.
    Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, 
subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene, 
and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the 
hearing, including the opportunity to present evidence and cross-
examine witnesses.
    If a hearing is requested, the Commission will make a final 
determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The 
final determination will serve to decide when the hearing is held.
    If the final determination is that the amendment request involves 
no significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the 
amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the 
request for a hearing. Any hearing held would take place after issuance 
of the amendment.
    If the final determination is that the amendment request involves a 
significant hazards consideration, any

[[Page 60414]]

hearing held would take place before the issuance of any amendment.
    A request for a hearing or a petition for leave to intervene must 
be filed with the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemakings and 
Adjudications Staff, or may be delivered to the Commission's Public 
Document Room, the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC, 
by the above date. A copy of the petition should also be sent to the 
Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Washington, DC 20555-0001, and to Douglas K. Porter, Esquire, Southern 
California Edison Company, P.O. Box 800, Rosemead, California 91770, 
attorney for the licensee.
    Nontimely filings of petitions for leave to intervene, amended 
petitions, supplemental petitions and/or requests for hearing will not 
be entertained absent a determination by the Commission, the presiding 
officer or the presiding Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that the 
petition and/or request should be granted based upon a balancing of the 
factors specified in 10 CFR 2.714(a)(1)(i)-(v) and 2.714(d).

    For further details with respect to this action, see the 
application for amendment dated June 12, 1998, as supplemented by 
letter dated October 29, 1998, which is available for public 
inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, the Gelman 
Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC, and at the local 
public document room located at the Main Library, University of 
California, Irvine, California 92713.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 3rd day of November 1998.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
James W. Clifford,
Senior Project Manager, Project Directorate IV-2, Division of Reactor 
Projects III/IV, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 98-29919 Filed 11-6-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P